linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] docs: submitting-patches: clarify difference between Acked-by and Reviewed-by

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAEg-Je9Cs54SkvhzbSq=2v2QYMo=mwUuGqFcs6cvi7nFgw6+Ug@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2025 11:35:29 -0500
From: Neal Gompa <neal@...pa.dev>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, workflows@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	patches@...ts.linux.dev, Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>, 
	Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>, Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>, 
	tech-board@...ups.linuxfoundation.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, 
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, 
	"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] docs: submitting-patches: clarify difference between
 Acked-by and Reviewed-by

On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 11:31 AM Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 4:51 PM Neal Gompa <neal@...pa.dev> wrote:
> >
> > This doesn't make sense as a distinction. What defines "thoroughly"?
>
> It is a call, but when you give a Reviewed-by, it at least includes
> what the "Reviewer's statement of oversight" mentions, unlike an
> Acked-by.
>
> > To be honest, I think you should go the other way and become okay with
> > people sending Reviewed-by tags when people have looked over a patch
> > and consider it good to land.
>
> I am not sure what you mean. It is OK for people to send Reviewed-by
> tags. The original discussion was about Acked-by because that is the
> one that was usually used by maintainers only.
>
> If what you mean is that Reviewed-by should not require an actual
> review, then that is not the purpose of the tag. Please see the
> "Reviewer's statement of oversight" -- its first bullet says:
>
>      (a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to
>          evaluate its appropriateness and readiness for inclusion into
>          the mainline kernel.
>

I've had my Reviewed-by tags silently ignored or deliberately stripped
because even though I've done a technical review, the maintainer does
not believe that I did. Therefore, what I am saying is that
maintainers seem to speciously decide whether an Acked-by or
Reviewed-by tag is appropriate or not *after* someone has sent it.

This is the fundamental problem I have right now. This decision is not
the maintainer's to make, it is the submitter's.


-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!